Mark of the Beast

radarmark said:
I was so hoping someone would catch on to what Dream wrote. "If all you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail"--same idea, IMO. What happens is that we (the majority of us here in the USA) are bombarded with "things from the Bible". I remember being invited to Southern Baptist Churches when I was in grammar school (about the time of Brown v Topeka) and hearing "biblical" defenses of racism. Or hearing that men had one less rib (and, oh, women should not speak).

Children soak this stuff up. Until my generation dies off you can never be rid of such nonsense. Oh, but now we are allowing "home schooling" (the overwhelming percentage anti-science and anti-American (I consider racism, sexism and homophobia something that really do not belong here).

The Bible is true, filled with great symbolic and mystical ideas. But it is not inerrant (Pi = 3 or bats = birds). In fact, it is filled with scribal (accidental) and idelogical (purposefully re-written) and factual (scientifically wrong) errors.

It is even debatable that we have the Bible "as written" (the case has been made this is even true with the Hebrew scriptures) any more than we have Finnegan's Wake as written (obscure reference to "Work in Progress" by Joyce versus his notebooks).

Live with it. Use your reason and your senses and your common sense to interpret it. Realize you can always (ALWAYS) be wrong.

As my bride says "do not people realize that even if G!d directly gave the Words of the Gospels to the Disciples, they wrote them so there must be some error." I can argue the other side (the texual problems) all day long.

That is my answer, IG.

Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
Click to expand...

Of course the HOPE is the true interpretation.
 
IowaGuy said:
This is an interesting analogy, the bible and a black box. Do you think the bible contains "absolute truths" or "subjective truths"? Do you think there is one "true" interpretation of the bible?
Click to expand...
First I mostly agree with what Radarmark said.

What is the Bible's opinion of absolute truth? The Bible recognizes as problematic that any person who keeps talking is perceived as an authority. (I could, if I chose, take any religious text and start my own assembly despite the fact that I've no clue.) The Bible writers seemed to be aware of this.

I do know that Jewish writers realized early on the problem of absolutism which results from the natural tendencies of people, and they began to ponder how to counter its effects. Possibly they realized it due to the appearance of new cults which attracted worshipers and created divisions. Possibly it was always at the center of their philosophy, but the philosophy about it was rich and developed by the time of the early church. Many of the passages we have in the 'New' testament are about combating it. Often what appears to be the occasional absolutist statement really isn't once you factor in who the person is, where they were, what they were discussing and what they were trying to communicate. In contrast there are many clearly anti-absolutist statements, and these are commentary on the previous literature the laws, prophets and other writings.
 
So, there are multiple correct interpretations of the bible?

Are there any "wrong" interpretations of the bible? (assuming one doesn't harm another due to that interpretation)
 
Iowaguy said:
So, there are multiple correct interpretations of the bible?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but by definition an interpretation can never be correct.

Are there any "wrong" interpretations of the bible? (assuming one doesn't harm another due to that interpretation)
Click to expand...
There are evil interpretations and good interpretations put to evil purposes, but an interpretation cannot be wrong as long as it admits to being just an interpretation. It becomes wrong when it claims to be more than interpretation. The stronger the claim, the more wrong it is. That is my interpretation of things, and I can point out why I think it is founded in Christian scriptures but not guarantee it.
 
Dream said:
I don't know, but by definition an interpretation can never be correct.

There are evil interpretations and good interpretations put to evil purposes, but an interpretation cannot be wrong as long as it admits to being just an interpretation. It becomes wrong when it claims to be more than interpretation. The stronger the claim, the more wrong it is. That is my interpretation of things, and I can point out why I think it is founded in Christian scriptures but not guarantee it.
Click to expand...

Wow someone I agree with on interpretation :rolleyes:
 
Dream said:
I guess it could be that, but could be more far reaching. I would put anti-semitism as included with it, but the activity of the beast is directed against the church of Jesus. Most modern Jews would themselves object to being called that. I realize of course that you are excluding anything attributable to Paul from having any bearing on it and are looking at it in a different way than most people. Would you pretty much say that only Jews are his church?
Click to expand...


That's a dangerous question tantamount to arrogance if I were to answer it on a personal basis. I'll rather let some Biblical personages do it for me. Starting with Jesus, he said in John 17:17 that the Truth is the Word of God. Then, we have from Psalm 147:19,20 that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. Now, Isaiah says that when Gentiles want instruction in the Word of God, that the address must be Zion and Jerusalem where God's Word is supposed to come from. That's in Isaiah 2:2,3. "Zion and Jerusalem" is given here as a synonym of Israel, the Jewish People and not spoken of geographically. As you can see I am not the one saying so but Jesus, the Psalmist and Isaiah.
Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
That's a dangerous question tantamount to arrogance if I were to answer it on a personal basis. I'll rather let some Biblical personages do it for me. Starting with Jesus, he said in John 17:17 that the Truth is the Word of God. Then, we have from Psalm 147:19,20 that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. Now, Isaiah says that when Gentiles want instruction in the Word of God, that the address must be Zion and Jerusalem where God's Word is supposed to come from. That's in Isaiah 2:2,3. "Zion and Jerusalem" is given here as a synonym of Israel, the Jewish People and not spoken of geographically. As you can see I am not the one saying so but Jesus, the Psalmist and Isaiah.
Ben
Click to expand...

Are you sure Psalm 147 doesn't means people as a nation? (Not necessarily individuals?) Surely individuals can have the law written in their hearts, which was a stated goal for Israel as a nation in Jeremiah 31. Job was from the east. Would you say he didn't have the law written in his heart?
 
seattlegal said:
Are you sure Psalm 147 doesn't means people as a nation? (Not necessarily individuals?) Surely individuals can have the law written in their hearts, which was a stated goal for Israel as a nation in Jeremiah 31. Job was from the east. Would you say he didn't have the law written in his heart?
Click to expand...


Seattlegal, I am 100 percent sure that Psalm 147 does mean the People of Israel as a nation. The whole Jewish People throughout the earth. And I mean, absolutely not on an individual basis. The Word of God was given to the People and not to the individual. The individual is counted only as part of the community. As Jesus himself said in John 4:22, salvation comes from the Jews (the community) and not from one among the Jews.
Ben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top